Add Poll
Options: Text Color Split Pie
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 8th, 2023 at 12:35pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
On 6 September, following the release of Tucker Carlson's interview with Larry Sinclair, Luke Rudkowski, who runs a YouTube channel called WeAreChange, spoke with Larry Sinclair in a live stream. In this case, the polygraph was directly addressed. The following link begins at the point where Rudkowski asks Sinclair about the lie detector:
Posted by: no poly
Posted on: Sep 7th, 2023 at 11:17am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The interview is here:

Larry only mentions the polygraph around from the 32:23 - 32:40 mark when he speaks about losing access to his YouTube account shortly after taking a polygraph test.  That is all. Tucker Carlson does not ask Larry anything about the polygraph test. 

I guess the polygraph is still not a big political issue because it only applies to a select few people and the majority of the world still think it works based on TV and movies.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 6th, 2023 at 2:40pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Former Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson has conducted an interview of Larry Sinclair that will be made available via X later today (Wednesday, September 6th):

It's not clear whether the topic of Sinclair's polygraph examination will be raised, but there is considerable discussion of it on X at the moment.
Posted by: figs
Posted on: Sep 14th, 2011 at 3:53pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Interesting post. In Mr. Barland's conclusion he states:

"I believe that the irregularities in this examination would be more likely to create an inconclusive result than an erroneous one."

Really Mr. Barland?--you have conducted experiments to show you can predict how an "irregularity" affects the tracings? It never fails to amaze me how these polygraphers pull such things out of their hats; it's akin to Astrology and Phrenology.

Irregularities also imply deviation from a standard. What's that standard? What are the deviations from it? 
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 14th, 2011 at 9:19am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I think the most interesting revelation from the video is that it appears that PolyScore had Sinclair passing both question series. It's interesting that PolyScore arrived at results that are the polar opposites of those reached by Gelb and Barland in their hand-scoring of the charts.
Posted by: stefano - Ex Member
Posted on: Sep 14th, 2011 at 3:05am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Interesting post. In Mr. Barland's conclusion he states:

"I believe that the irregularities in this examination would be more likely to create an inconclusive result than an erroneous one."

Really Mr. Barland?--you have conducted experiments to show you can predict how an "irregularity" affects the tracings? It never fails to amaze me how these polygraphers pull such things out of their hats; it's akin to Astrology and Phrenology.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 13th, 2011 at 5:32am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
A video recording of Edward Gelb's polygraph examination of Larry Sinclair was offered as evidence in Parisi v. Sinclair (Case 1:10-CV-00897-RJL in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia). The video may be viewed on-line here:

Based on the video and previously-released documentation, I have prepared a critique and evaluation of Gelb's polygraph examination of Larry Sinclair, which is attached to this post.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Mar 2nd, 2011 at 2:41pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
On Monday, 28 February 2011, a hearing was held in Parisi v. Sinclair et al. on a motion to dismiss. Blogger and lawyer Andrew Kreig attended the hearing and has an interesting commentary on why this case, which has received virtually no media coverage, has significant constitutional implications. See "Libel Suit Hearing In DC Explores Political Free Press Issues."
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jun 3rd, 2010 at 3:15pm
  Mark & Quote
Since this topic was last discussed here, Larry Sinclair has published a book (which I haven't read) in which he discusses, among other things, the polygraph examination that Dan Parisi arranged for him to undergo with Ed Gelb in Los Angeles.

Parisi has now filed a defamation lawsuit (see attached PDF) against Sinclair (and others):


Obama Accuser Accused

     WASHINGTON (CN) - A political blogger claims a gadfly defamed him with "wild allegations" about colluding with then-Senator Barack Obama's campaign to hide the murder of a church choir director, cocaine use and gay sex. Daniel Parisi sued Larry Sinclair in Federal Court, and also sued a radio talk show host, Sinclair Publishing, Barnes & Noble,, and Books-a-Million. 

     Parisi claims Sinclair published a book in 2009 that accuses him of colluding with Obama's adviser David Axelrod to rig a polygraph exam that would debunk Sinclair's story that he had sex and took cocaine with then-Senator Obama.

     Parisi claims that in 2008 Sinclair posted "wild allegations regarding the purchase, sale and use of drugs and sexual activity by and between Sinclair and Obama," on YouTube. That video was still posted on YouTube this morning (Thursday).

     Parisi says Sinclair's book is riddled with false information, including that he criminally conspired with Obama and his campaign; that he accepted money from the campaign; that he rigged Sinclair's polygraph; that he and Obama were somehow involved in the murder of a church choir master; and that his website,, contained pornography.

     Parisi claims that Barnes & Noble, Amazon and Books-A-Million sell Sinclair's book with claims such as "100% true," and "staggeringly true story," to sell the concoction of nonsense.

     "Sinclair's book and the statements published by other defendants did not contain a scintilla of factual support for their wildly false and reckless untrue statements," Parisi says.

     Parisi claims he sent a cease-and-desist order to Sinclair, who responded, "HELL, NO."

     In his complaint, Parisi says his own website,, "paid Sinclair $20,000 by check as part of a modified agreement" for Sinclair to take a polygraph exam. Parisi claims the "modified agreement" came after "He [Parisi] offered to pay Sinclair $10,000 to take polygraph examinations and it pay him $100,000 if the examinations showed Sinclair was telling the truth., Inc. later paid Sinclair $20,000 by check as part of a modified agreement."

     Parisi claims Sinclair "showed deception" on both his polygraph exams, and never produced the evidence he claimed to have.

     Parisi seeks millions of dollars for defamation and business disparagement. He also sued radio talk show host Jeffrey Rense, of Ashland, Ore.

     Parisi is represented by Richard Oparil with Patton Boggs.

Posted by: notguilty1
Posted on: Nov 11th, 2008 at 3:38am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I belive that his man is telling the truth and that we the american people have better start praying like never before. Cry :'

You must be kidding  Grin Grin Grin
Posted by: Regina Childress
Posted on: Nov 10th, 2008 at 5:54pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I belive that his man is telling the truth and that we the american people have better start praying like never before. Cry :'
Posted by: Lethe
Posted on: Jun 24th, 2008 at 9:57pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
It's interesting how pornographers are becoming such big consumers of polygraph exams nowadays.  It strikes me just how many similarities there are between them and the two biggest consumers of polygraphs: the United States government and law enforcement agencies.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jun 21st, 2008 at 7:40am
  Mark & QuoteQuote

Keeping in mind that polygraphy itself is as fishy as a basket of herring left to rot under the sun for several days, yes -- as I've explained earlier in this message thread -- there is something particularly fishy about the manner in which the polygraph examination arranged by for Larry Sinclair was conducted.

At the same time, I'm not suggesting that Sinclair's allegations against Barack Obama are true (far from it!), nor is it my purpose to extend hope to the lunatic fringe who desperately want to believe Sinclair and grasp at the straw of his questionable polygraph results for succor.
Posted by: Michael
Posted on: Jun 20th, 2008 at 2:02pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
One question...
In your opinion was there something fishy with the whole white house polygraph.

I think it is fair to say that whitehouse didn't want to perpetuate the rumour once they found out Sinclair was lying as it makes no sense for them to have recieved a bribe when they could have made so much more.
Posted by: mrje
Posted on: Jun 20th, 2008 at 1:49pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Thanks so much for posting this parisi audio file - otherwise, the whole event has disappeared!?
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:35am
  Mark & Quote
Indeed, Larry Sinclair was arrested on an outstanding warrant (reportedly for insurance fraud) in the state of Delaware promptly after the conclusion of his press conference. To the best of my understanding, he is still in a District of Columbia jail awaiting extradition to Delaware. There is also an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Colorado on felony theft and forgery charges.

Early on the morning of Tuesday, 17 June (Central European Time), I received an e-mail message from Mr. Sinclair seeking my opinion regarding his polygraph examination and asking if I would call him or his lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, that day. While I do not in any way endorse Mr. Sinclair's claims, I saw no harm in sharing with him my views regarding his polygraph examination (which in any event, were already posted here). I thought it best to put my remarks in writing as a protection against being misquoted, and I thus e-mailed him a summary of my observations regarding the polygraph examination that arranged for him. I later forwarded this e-mail to Mr. Sibley, who wrote back asking whether it would be okay to refer the media to me. I replied stating that while I in no way endorse Mr. Sinclair's allegations, I would be happy (as always) to answer reporters' questions regarding the polygraph.

And that is how I ended up being mentioned in Mr. Sinclair's press conference, video of which is available from

My e-mail to Mr. Sinclair has also been included (without my having been consulted, although I don't object) among other documents on the site: held its press conference shortly after Mr. Sinclair's press conference ended. Dan Parisi, the proprietor of did not provide the video of Sinclair's polygraph examination that had been promised in his press release, and after reading prepared remarks, he cut off questions and ended the press conference after only four minutes. has since been scrubbed of any mention of the press conference.

Audio of both press conferences has been posted to in a single audio file. I have extracted the portion and attached it to this post.

I think it's fair to say that while Larry Sinclair's credibility has been thoroughly impeached, no thanks are due to the pseudoscience of polygraphy.
Posted by: nopolycop
Posted on: Jun 20th, 2008 at 3:35am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
So, why haven't you reported that Larry Sinclair was arrested after his D.C. press conference?
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jun 18th, 2008 at 5:08am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
As mentioned on the blog, I've posted to YouTube a follow-up video commentary on's polygraph examination of Larry Sinclair:
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jun 17th, 2008 at 5:28am
  Mark & Quote
In a press conference timed to coincide with that which Larry Sinclair is scheduled to hold at the National Press Club on Wed. 18 June,, which engaged faux Ph.D. Ed Gelb to polygraph Sinclair, will be presenting its case:


WASHINGTON, June 17, 2008: will hold a press conference regarding the Larry Sinclair controversy on June 18, 2008 in the Visagor Lounge of the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045. Signup will start at 3:00 PM, and the actual conference will start at approximately 4:00 PM, following the conclusion of Mr. Sinclair's press conference, which is scheduled earlier in the day.

At the press conference, will describe how, in February 2008, Mr. Sinclair accepted an offer from to take two professionally-administered polygraph examinations to test the veracity of his explosive allegations. After the initial polygraph expert examined the results and made his conclusions, was accused of taking a $750,000 bribe to suppress and or alter the results of the polygraph examinations.

During the press conference, will release the results of the polygraph examinations, the reports of the experts, and a video of Mr. Sinclair taken while the examinations were being administered. focuses on giving average Americans a greater voice on issues facing the country., which is celebrating its 11th year, has been visited by over 100 million people since its inception in 1997. We are not affiliated with or endorsed by U.S. Government.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:31am
  Mark & Quote
Larry Sinclair, who -- as you may recall -- in a YouTube video posted in January of this year challenged Senator Barack Obama to a polygraph showdown over alleged gay sex and illegal drug use, will be holding a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC this Wednesday, 18 June 2008 at which he promises -- at long last -- to corroborate his allegations against Sen. Obama. One wonders how he might do so. Will he announce that he has passed a polygraph test?

Roll Eyes


Barrack Obama Illegal Drug Use Allegations to be Corroborated at Press Conference
June 13, 2008


Washington, D.C. - Despite death threats and an organized campaign to prevent him from speaking publicly, Larry Sinclair – on June 18, 2008, at 3:00 PM in the Lisagor Room of the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045, will for the first time reveal the corroborating evidence for his claim that on November 6 + 7, 1999, Larry: (i) met Obama at a gay bar where Barrack Obama arranged for the purchase of federal Schedule II drugs, (ii) which Larry and Obama thereafter ingested and (iii) then engaged in hi-risk, homosexual activities.

Larry’s story burst on to the scene on January 18, 2008, when Larry released a short video containing these allegations on  That video has had close to a million views yet the mainstream media has completely ignored Larry’s serious allegations.  Thereafter, a clearly orchestrated campaign to discredit Larry began on the internet which forced Larry to resort to federal court to protect his reputation.

At the press conference, Larry will (i) reveal the corroborating evidence for his allegations regarding Obama, (ii) address the time-line of the response of the Obama campaign to his allegations and the murder of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director of Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama’s now-former church and (iii) the significance of the refusal of U.S. District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. to allow Larry’s case to proceed.

Media Contact:
Montgomery Sibley
mbsibley@earthlink.netThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

- End -
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Mar 9th, 2008 at 8:27pm
  Mark & Quote
The latest issue of the weekly tabloid Globe Magazine features an article about Larry Sinclair that addresses, among other things, his lie detector tests with Ed Gelb:

Now fueling further controversy in the ugly scandal is a disputed polygraph test that was set up and administered by an Internet Web site. Sinclair took up an offer from, which is not connected to the government, to take a lie-detector test about his Obama charges. He was paid $10,000 for taking it and promised $100,000 if he passed.

He flew to Los Angeles and took the test administered by former American Polygraph Association president Dr. Ed Gelb on Feb. 22. reports that Sinclair failed on two key points -- the claim that he had sex with Obama, and the charge that he saw Obama smoke crack.

"There was deception indicated in both tests," the site reported on Feb. 24, adding that "another expert examiner" independently corroborated the findings. But Sinclair tells GLOBE he was suckered into taking the test and was "set up" to look bad by failing the polygraph.

He says he's been told Obama's camp is behind the lie-detector offer -- and also contends the Obama campaign put up hundreds of thousands of dollars to "set the entire thing up."

"They put a condition in there that I'm not allowed to take another polygraph test for four weeks," he says.

"This was a tactic designed to allow Obama to pretty much lock up the nomination before I can take another test and prove my story once and for all!"

In his defense, Gelb tells GLOBE, "I have never taken a bribe to do anything improper in my life. This is a profession based on truth, honesty, integrity. I don't think you're ever going to find me in a position to compromise that."

But of course "Dr." Gelb did compromise that by misrepresenting himself as a Ph.D. in marketing his polygraph services.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 27th, 2008 at 6:51pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
"...How many lives and careers have been destroyed by an accusation but not by a jury?  A negative is hard to disprove.  Those who protest must be guilty.  You are either with me or against me but you cannot have a dissenting opinion even in good faith.  Is this what our country has come to?"

The scariest thing is that these guys, for all practical purposes, have the "final say" with regard to the hiring at NSA/CIA/FBI.  Much to the chagrin of the hiring committees at these agencies.

It's only the national security!
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Feb 27th, 2008 at 6:54am
  Mark & Quote
Although did not post it, Gordon Barland did in fact complete a review of Ed Gelb's polygraph examinations of Larry Sinclair. sent Barland's review to Mr. Sinclair, who has posted it on his "Windows Live Space." has made word-searchable versions of Gelb's reports and Barland's review available here:

Gordon Barland's review shows Ed Gelb's statement in his reports that "The polygrams [polygraph charts] were 'blind scored' by another expert examiner" to be false (assuming Barland is the examiner to whom Gelb referred). In scoring Sinclair's polygrams, Barland was not blinded with regard to any of the following salient details:
  • The name of the original examiner;
  • The name of the examinee;
  • The nature of the examinee's allegations;
  • The actual polygraph questions asked (as opposed to just their type -- relevant, control/comparison, irrelevant, etc., which is all that is needed to score the charts);
  • The decision(s) rendered by the original examiner

That Gelb, a past-president of the American Polygraph Association, could consider Barland's review to have been "blind" helps illustrate just how far removed polygraph practice is from the scientific method.

Barland's report makes it clear why Gelb failed to mention the results of any computerized scoring of his polygraph charts. Although Barland, in his non-blinded review agreed with Gelb's hand scoring of the charts, in the one case (regarding the drug allegation) where Barland ran a computerized scoring algorithm on the chart, contrary to Gelb and Barland's hand-scored finding that Sinclair had failed, the computer determined that he had passed (and with flying colors at that)! Barland writes (at para. 6):

I scored the printout of the second series of charts (regarding cocaine), but was not satisfied with the quality of the electrodermal channel on one of the charts. When I received the digital data and optimized the channel, I used the Federal 7 position scale and the 2007 DACA reaction criteria to evaluate the charts. I scored the charts as -7 (Deception Indicated). I also evaluated the second series using the computer algorithm PolyScore (v. 6.0). It evaluated the charts as No Deception Indicated, and calculated the probability of deception as being less than .01 on a scale from .00 to 1.00. This was inconsistent with my numerical analysis. This is a relatively uncommon occurrence. The DACA guidelines indicate that when there is conflict between the examiner's or reviewer's score and Polyscore, the human score takes precedence. The computer algorithms are considered to be useful supplements, but they are not definitive, I therefore concur with Mr. Gelb's conclusions that Mr. Sinclair showed indications of deception on both test issues.

So the PolyScore algorithm (that Ed Gelb so hailed in his polygraph report for Wendy Ellis) found Sinclair truthful with a less than 1% probability of deception! But in this case, Gelb and Barland (who cannot have been unaware of the firestorm of controversy that would have resulted had they found Sinclair non-deceptive with regard to this question) somehow reached a completely opposite conclusion!

Gelb did not provide Barland with the computerized data for the examination on Sinclair's sex allegations, and thus he was not able to run PolyScore on them.
Posted by: Fair Chance
Posted on: Feb 27th, 2008 at 5:47am
  Mark & Quote

Many accusations but few facts.  The polygraph is "scientific."  In some other post it is more "of an art than a science."  How many lives and careers have been destroyed by an accusation but not by a jury?  A negative is hard to disprove.  Those who protest must be guilty.  You are either with me or against me but you cannot have a dissenting opinion even in good faith.  Is this what our country has come to?

To put it bluntly, it is scary.  Are you a communist?  Does your religion colour your judgement?  The intellegence community has bought into the argument a crutch, it is called the polygraph.  People do not fail, it is the machine that was not interpreted properly after the fact.  I was accused of deception at one time only to prove that I am even more than willing to sacrifice my family's future to protect the Constitution.  I stand by my values in the face of losing everything I hold dear.

Stand accused of violating the almighty polygraph and you will not serve our country.  My grandfathers who served in the Battle of the Bulge would have probably failed the polygraph.  They were not perfect men, they were not perfect patriots, but they were willing to get killed sent as fodder knowing that the Panzers could blow the turret off of any Sherman Tank the Germans could sight.  They were sent as a "delaying force."  Only one in five survived and most of those did so with heavy losses.  I saw them live with the ghost of those they held dear only to feel guilty that they somehow survived.

I only wish that I could ask them what they thought of a machine that could "read their thoughts."  From what they showed to me in time and affection over many years,  they wanted me to judge them by their actions and deeds, not by what others thought of them.  This polygraph business has got to stop.  It is more of a scare tactic than fact.


Posted by: yankeedog
Posted on: Feb 27th, 2008 at 12:17am
  Mark & QuoteQuote

1.  What is your speculation with respect to the "true motivations" for such a decision?
2.  What are you suggesting "actually" did occur in Mr Gelb's polygraph suite?  Are you suggesting that Mr Gelb's test was rigged?  Shocked